Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 «Дело Прохорова (Prokhorova) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF PROKHOROVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 13869/05)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 8.X.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Prokhorova v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina {Vajic} <*>, President,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Andre} Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 13869/05) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Ms Irina Grigoryevna Prokhorova ("the applicant"), on 16 March 2005.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agents, Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and Mr Savenkov, former acting Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 2 November 2005 the President of the First Section decided to communicate the complaint concerning non-enforcement to the respondent Government. As it appeared from the Government's observations that the judgments of 18 December 1997 and 12 February 1999 were quashed by way of supervisory review, and as the applicant lodged the additional relevant complaint, on 23 October 2007 the President of the First Section decided to communicate the complaint concerning the supervisory review proceedings, too. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

4. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Voronezh.

1. First set of proceedings

5. On 18 December 1997 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant arrears in child benefits in the amount of 1,062 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment was not appealed against and became final. It was not enforced.
6. On 13 December 2000 upon request of the authorities the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgment by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It based its decision on the ground that another defendant authority should have also been a party to the proceedings.
7. On 4 April 2001 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh in case No. 2-3638/01 awarded the applicant RUB 2,914.49 as arrears in child benefits. There was no appeal.
8. According to the Government, the applicant had been present at the hearing on 4 April 2001. They submitted a copy of the relevant record of proceedings. The record contains information that the applicant was present at the hearing and supported her claims. The record is signed by the judge who tried the case and by the clerk.
9. According to the applicant, she was not present at the hearings on that date. She provided the Court with a copy of a page from the case-file on which the parties put their signatures attesting the rece

> 1 2 3 ... 4 5